A High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt has fixed July 16, 2025, to decide and rule if the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) breached a contract it awarded an indigenous contractor, Macobarb International Limited, years ago, and if the breach led to costs as high as N5.74 billion.

Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, on Tuesday, said the court is going to decide and rule on the matter in suit number PHC/2013/CS/2022.

She fixed the date after counsels for both parties adopted and adumbrated their final written addresses, each seeking to convince the judge to rule in their client?s favour.

Macobarb had sued NLNG, claiming that it breached the terms of the contract and that this breach led to various costs amounting to N5.74 billion, saying the contract was deemed to still be running and that costs are rising.

Adopting their address, the lead counsel for Macobarb, Benefit Vilokpo, said, ?Claimants have shown by their pleadings and documentary evidence that NLNG breached its terms of contract, and that Macobarb has demonstrated that the purported letter of termination dated 27th November, 2015, is unlawful, null, and void.?

Counsel also said the contract agreement made several provisions for ?Standby Payments? and that Claimants have shown that they are entitled to Standby Payments.

The claimants? lead counsel submitted in their adopted final address what they considered issues for determination, thus: ?Whether the Claimants have proved their case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case (a. Whether the purported termination letter dated 27th November 2015 was valid in view of the provisions of the Contract Agreement).?

The Claimants built their claim on the ground that the person who terminated the contract (Emeka Ohiri) was not known to the contract. Rather, it is the Contract Holder, Dweller Francis, who was known to the contract, and that the said Francis never served Macobarb any termination letter.

The claimant counsel also said and pointed to the sections in their final address that the contract provided for standdown time.

Another prong on which the claimant wanted the judge to consider an opinion is whether the Defendant (NLNG) fulfilled the terms and conditions of the Close-out Meeting.

The Claimants? final address noted that, to demonstrate that the Contract is still in existence, the Defendant, NLNG, called for a meeting on February 19, 2016, termed ?Project close-out meeting?. The contract close-out meeting with signatures of all the attendees (Exhibit YJ 5) showed where it was stated that, to close out the contract, NLNG will have to establish what the costs for the materials delivered to NLNG were, as well as the cost for demobilising, and to prepare the payment Certificates for all items of the contract executed by the contractor.

Macobarb asked the court to view that the Contract is yet to be closed out and to also note that the Defendant (NLNG) admitted receipt of materials, including a 20ft container, from the Claimants.

NLNG key positions

The NLNG lead counsel, Prof. Bayo Adaralegbe, on the other hand, wants the Court to determine whether the second claimant was a party to the contract and can sue in respect of the contract. Macobarb countered this in their address that this contention by the NLNG had earlier been dismissed by the same court and judge when it was raised during preliminary objection and that, in fact, the judge had awarded a fine of N200,000 against the NLNG.

The NLNG counsel also wants the Court to determine whether the Defendant (NLNG) breached the contract as alleged by the Claimants; whether the Defendant wrongfully terminated the Contract; and whether the Claimants were entitled to the N5.74 billion.

During adoption and adumbration of the final addresses on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the defence lead counsel asked the court to dismiss the claim by Macobarb on the ground that the termination of the contract was legitimate and was done by the rightful party. Adaralegbe said the contract provided a lump sum amount and that the claim by Macobarb was outside the amount so provided and that it did not have any basis.

The Claimants? counsel, however, countered in their address to the court, saying that the Defendant did not challenge the amount submitted by the Claimants? principal witness, the forensic accountant, and quoted the Supreme Court?s position on such matters.

The Claimants? counsel also said the Defendant did not plead any alternative figure in their statement of defence as being a more realistic or reasonable figure.

Another crucial matter both parties addressed is the issue of the ?Performance Bond? mentioned in the contract. The NLNG submitted that the Claimant (contractor) failed to submit it within 14 days and that this was the basis for termination of the contract.

The Claimants? (Macobarb) counsel countered that the contract did not state who was to submit the Performance Bond between the contractor and the contract owner. Macobarb thus asked the court to note that both parties failed on that and thus ?deviated?, and that, by law, deviation would be regarded as mutual and thus not punishable.

Macobarb further asked the court to note that it was 16 months after commencement of the contract that the NLNG wrote to demand it, as well as submitted the sample of the performance bond. The claimant, therefore, argued that the Performance Bond did not stop the contract from performing for up to 18 months.

The Claimants? counsel particularly drew the attention of the court to a section of the defendant?s address and said that, by NLNG?s admission that, by November 27, 2015, the contract was ?coming to an end?, this meant that they admitted that the contract was yet to come to an end by that time. She said this amounted to an inconsistency, which she said is not admissible in law. She attempted to quote authorities on that.

The judge is thus to determine if the Performance Bond was so crucial in the contract to warrant termination of the job, and if the right person known to the contract carried out the termination.

Macobarb particularly drew the attention of the court to the many steps they took, up to the Nigerian Senate, seeking peaceful resolution, but to no avail, probably to show that the company (Macobarb) was not just being a troublesome contractor.

It seems to be these decisions that would lead to whether NLNG owes Macobarb any amount at all and, if so, whether such debt is up to N5.74 billion.

A highpoint in the addresses by both counsels was when the judge, Chinwendu Nwogu, reminded Macobarb?s counsel (Vilokpo) that any new authorities quoted during adumbration that were not contained in their original address were not going to be recorded or regarded.

The outcome of the controversial case seems very sensitive because of its criticality in how multinational companies and their indigenous contractors handle disputes, now and in the future. (Daily Sun)

Update news